Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 390 ｜ Kristi Noem Betrays Girls' Sports; the PRO Act Betrays Freelancers ｜ Guest： Kelsey Bolar

00:00:00.000 Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Tuesday. Hope everyone has had a wonderful week so

00:00:15.580 far. If you haven't listened to yesterday's long episode, then I encourage you to do so.

00:00:22.420 There is still a lot of conversation, a lot of vitriol right now, and understandably a

00:00:28.420 lot of sadness about the events in Atlanta last week. And we remember those victims and

00:00:33.880 we remember the humanity that should always remain the center of these kinds of discussions.

00:00:39.400 And we also talk about what is true behind these trends or what is being reported as

00:00:45.500 a trend of anti-Asian hate crimes. There's a lot of accusations about that. And we look

00:00:51.280 at the data, we look at the studies to see what is actually true. So I really encourage

00:00:55.840 you to go listen to yesterday's episode if you need clarity on that. There's another

00:01:00.560 huge crisis and controversy going on right now with what's happening at the border. You

00:01:05.260 guys might have listened to last Thursday's podcast kind of giving us the explanation.

00:01:11.120 I interviewed an expert on this of what is actually going on with illegal immigration,

00:01:15.920 with these migrants at the border. They're being transferred to different parts of Texas,

00:01:20.020 different parts of the United States on the taxpayer dime, thousands and thousands being

00:01:24.400 relocated and put into hotel rooms. And remember the National Guard in January when they were tasked

00:01:29.900 with guarding the Capitol after the Capitol riot, we saw pictures of them being placed in basically a

00:01:36.260 parking garage without any beds, sharing apparently one bathroom without any food or water. But now we

00:01:43.160 are paying for illegal immigrants to be put up in hotel rooms and different convention centers 0.99

00:01:47.640 around the country. And we talked about, again, how we approach this issue with compassion,

00:01:54.220 but also how we have to look out for the safety of our citizens and how we have to protect our

00:02:00.760 borders. It is a humanitarian crisis that has been it's lasted for a long time, but it's been

00:02:06.540 exacerbated by Biden's policies. We talk about how exactly it's been exacerbated by Biden's specific

00:02:12.640 policies. Now there is basically a gag rule, it seems for journalists. They're not allowed to

00:02:18.680 they're not allowed to have access to parts of the border. They're not allowed to talk to particular

00:02:23.440 agents. They're really not allowed to see what's going on. And that is an a demand that is a command

00:02:30.540 from the Biden administration that they're basically not allowed to really report on what's going on at

00:02:36.180 the border. That I mean, if that were happening under Donald Trump, if the Trump administration

00:02:41.860 basically said, hey, sorry, you can't have access to what's going on at the border. I mean, there would

00:02:46.800 be so much outcry about fascism and about the concentration camps at the border. I mean, we've seen

00:02:53.460 some pictures of these kids put in, again, what look like cages cramped. A lot more of them are there now

00:03:02.160 than were under Trump because, again, of Biden's policies. It's just a terrible, terrible situation

00:03:09.060 that's going on. And the same people that said that they voted for Biden because of this, quote,

00:03:15.220 holistically pro-life issue of kids in cages and wanting to protect migrants. They're not saying

00:03:21.800 anything right now. They're not saying anything. The whole thing is just a farce. It was a farce,

00:03:28.220 at least before the election. And it's very sad. But we'll be talking more about that in the coming

00:03:32.880 days. But go back and listen to Thursday. It gives a lot of insight. Today, what we're going to talk

00:03:38.420 about is Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota. She has decided to backtrack on a piece of legislation.

00:03:46.440 She said she was excited to sign it, but apparently she's not excited to sign it anymore. And it has

00:03:50.940 to do with protecting girls' sports. And so we'll talk a little bit about why she has decided that

00:03:57.040 she doesn't want to sign this bill anymore. And then we're also going to talk about a very important

00:04:02.160 piece of legislation. And that is called the PRO Act. The PRO Act would absolutely wreck our economy

00:04:09.940 by making it nearly impossible for you to be a freelancer, to be an independent contractor.

00:04:15.920 And we'll talk about how it actually stops most people who are freelancers from being freelancers

00:04:21.040 and what that would actually mean for the country, what that would mean for you specifically,

00:04:25.840 if you are a freelancer. And so we'll get into all of that today. I'm going to talk to Kelsey

00:04:31.240 Bowler. She is a journalist. She is a commentator. She's got a lot of insight on both of those

00:04:36.620 two issues. But first, before I get into that interview, I do want to give you a little background

00:04:43.340 about Kristi Noem, the governor of South Dakota, and this bill, which is HB 1217, and what her apparent

00:04:54.020 hesitations are about this bill. So this is according to The Federalist, an article by Margo

00:05:01.280 Cleveland bowing to corporate demands for a watered-down bill. Governor Kristi Noem sells out

00:05:06.280 women's sports. So the article says, after promising to sign HB at 1217, Noem instead took to Twitter 1.00

00:05:13.680 on Friday, March 19th to state why she had changed her mind and instead returned the bill to legislators

00:05:19.540 for modifications. Noem elaborated on her reasoning in a letter to legislators. She balked on signing

00:05:27.360 House Bill 1217. The article says, when the bill to promote fairness in women's sports crossed her

00:05:32.080 desk, instead of vetoing the legislation, she returned the bill to the House with what she called 1.00

00:05:36.560 recommendations as to style and form. So she is still saying, look, I believe that women's sports

00:05:41.960 should be protected. They should be exclusively for women. But there are just some parts of this bill

00:05:47.400 that I just don't think are great. But critics of Noem, conservative critics of Noem are saying,

00:05:53.540 uh, your changes, your proposed changes are actually a lot bigger than just style and form.

00:05:58.640 You're actually kind of hollowing out this bill so it doesn't really protect women's sports. And let

00:06:03.320 me give you some examples of that. So there are four sections of this bill. The article explains,

00:06:09.420 it's finalized by the South Dakota legislature. Section 1 of HB 1217 provided that athletic teams

00:06:15.840 in sports in the state, including at institutions of higher education, must be expressly designated

00:06:21.120 as male, female, or co-education. It also stipulated that teams or sports designed as female must be 0.96

00:06:27.020 available only to participants who are female based on their biological sex. In other words,

00:06:33.360 Section 1 demanded schools, including colleges, limit women's sports to women. If an education 1.00

00:06:41.080 institution violated that mandate and allowed a male student to join a female team, Section 4 provides

00:06:47.000 that a female athlete injured by that violation could sue the school and obtain an injunction to

00:06:52.580 prevent a continued violation and damages to remedy the harm, which makes sense. This is how it is

00:06:57.760 protecting women in sports. But Noem asked the South Dakota legislature to admit Section 1 so that the 0.95

00:07:05.400 bill applied only to elementary and high school student athletes while then denying those students any

00:07:10.980 remedy for violations of the law. So not only did she say, hey, I don't want this to actually apply to

00:07:16.140 colleges, but even though it's applying, even as it applies to elementary and high school student

00:07:21.920 athletes, I don't want them to be able to have any legal recourse. I don't want them to be able to

00:07:27.420 sue the students. So if you're asking yourself, what protections does this actually give if these

00:07:31.840 amendments are made? That's a good question to be asking. Noem requested the legislature strike

00:07:37.680 Section 2 of the bill, which would have required students to annually verify their age biological

00:07:42.760 sex based on genetics and reproductive biology and attest that they had not taken performance

00:07:47.540 enhancing drugs, including anabolic steroids, in the preceding 12 months. The most striking changes

00:07:52.860 Noem demanded came in her insistence that the legislature strike collegiate athletes from the 1.00

00:07:58.400 bill's protection and eliminate Section 4's promise of a remedy to girls and women harmed in a

00:08:03.640 violation of the bill or who were retaliated against for complaining about violations of the

00:08:08.880 law. Section 4 added a second protection for South Dakota student-athletes. It also protected

00:08:14.480 students from retaliation if they report violations of the act to a school representative, athletic

00:08:19.560 association, or a state or federal governmental entity with oversight authority. Thus, for instance,

00:08:24.560 if a female basketball player complained to an athletic department that a coach had allowed a male

00:08:28.540 athlete to join her team and the school responded by banning the complaining student from

00:08:32.660 school-sponsored sports, the female student would be entitled to sue for the school for retaliation. 0.96

00:08:37.860 But in sending the bill back to the state legislature, Noem made two requests related to

00:08:42.100 these interrelated provisions. She excluded collegiate athletes from the bill's coverage and then 0.52

00:08:47.140 directed the legislature to strike or delete Section 4 in its entirety. And so basically,

00:08:53.340 any protection that this bill tried to provide women in sports, she wanted to change. She wanted to take 0.99

00:08:59.720 out. And I am flabbergasted by that. If you look at the actual change, if you look at the actual

00:09:05.940 legislation, which we will link to, and you look to the changes that she wanted to propose, basically,

00:09:11.200 it makes this piece of legislation meaningless. And if you're wondering why that is, I'm going to talk

00:09:17.280 about it with Kelsey Bowler, but it has a lot to do probably with the NCAA and wanting tournaments to

00:09:25.520 be able to come to South Dakota. It helps the economy. It's a money thing. Now, she denies this.

00:09:34.000 Tucker Carlson pressed her on this last night. And I'll show you just a snippet of that.

00:09:40.320 When they took punitive action against us, we would have to litigate. And legal scholars that I have been

00:09:45.240 consulting with for many, many months say that I would very likely lose those litigation efforts.

00:09:50.580 And I don't think that families in South Dakota, I don't think people should have to sue many times

00:09:55.740 over and over again. But wait, wait, wait. So you're saying the NCAA threatened you and you don't

00:10:01.260 think you can win that fight. They said, if you sign this, we won't allow girls in South Dakota to 1.00

00:10:05.760 play. And you don't think you can win in court, even though the public overwhelmingly supports you

00:10:11.800 nationally. And so you're caving to the NCAA. I think that's what you're saying.

00:10:16.040 So we couldn't play the whole clip. But on the one hand, she says, OK, this has to do with

00:10:20.180 I don't think that this piece of legislation is going to be able to legally hold up.

00:10:24.980 And I just don't think it's we're going to be able to defend it in court. But she also says,

00:10:29.120 look, we want tournaments to come to South Dakota. So which one is it?

00:10:32.060 Is it that you don't want to fight the legal battles or is it because you want the tournaments

00:10:35.400 to come to South Dakota or both? In either case, is it really not worth the fight?

00:10:42.420 And that's what we're going to analyze with Kelsey Bowler in just a second. She's got a lot of good 1.00

00:10:47.400 insight for us into this bill and the implications of not signing the bill and also possibly the why

00:10:53.620 behind Governor Kristi Noem deciding not to sign it.

00:11:03.340 Kelsey, thank you so much for joining me. A couple of things I want to talk to you about today.

00:11:08.280 The first is Governor Kristi Noem, South Dakota. She has disappointed some conservatives by not

00:11:16.760 signing a bill that would ban boys identifying as transgender girls from girls athletics. Can you

00:11:25.480 tell us what this is, what's going on and why she why she won't sign this bill? 0.85

00:11:31.920 Absolutely. Well, thanks for having me. It's great to be here. This is a really important issue. And

00:11:38.980 to be frank, I am quite disappointed by Governor Noem in her decision to send this bill back that would

00:11:48.280 protect fairness in women's and girls sports back to the legislator for proposed changes. Now, look,

00:11:55.800 perhaps there were some quibbles. Perhaps there are some legitimate concerns that she is raising.

00:12:03.120 The problem is that she's been in politics for quite some time. And she knows enough that if if

00:12:10.720 she had changes to this bill, she should have raised them earlier and worked with members in her state

00:12:18.040 Congress to get the bill in a position where she would be ready to sign it. If protecting girls and 1.00

00:12:23.640 women's sports was really her priority, she could have and should have addressed any of these proposed 0.95

00:12:28.720 changes earlier. Now, let's get into what these proposed changes are, and whether they are legitimate.

00:12:37.080 So one of the changes she wants to do is remove protections for college sports, but keep protections 0.79

00:12:43.320 for K through 12 sports. Now, I'm glad she's keeping protections for K through 12 sports. But to

00:12:50.120 emphasize those over protections for college athletics is backwards. Because when is this issue more

00:12:59.560 important other than protecting the scholarships that are supposed to be meant for girls and women 0.56

00:13:06.360 at the college level? You know, girls aren't getting scholarships for their fifth grade soccer team. And 1.00

00:13:14.040 that's that's the real danger here that women are going to be stripped of their college athletic 1.00

00:13:19.800 scholarship opportunities because they are being beat out by biological boys who are identifying as

00:13:27.240 girls. So it should be very concerning that she removed that provision in the law. And that is why a lot of 0.62

00:13:34.280 critics right now are pointing out that it sounds like she's selling out to the NCAA and other

00:13:41.480 woke corporate interests, which were lobbying against this legislation. That is part of the reason why I

00:13:50.360 am personally disappointed in her decision. Because if Trump changed anything in our political landscape,

00:13:59.800 he sort of ripped the bandaid off and was the first leader to say, I am not bowing to these

00:14:06.680 woke corporations anymore. I am not going to fear a lawsuit from the NCAA and use that as an excuse not to

00:14:17.000 take a stand for issues I believe in. So she really believes in the in the need to protect girls and women's

00:14:24.200 sports. You would think that she wouldn't let the fear of lawsuits intimidation by the NCAA or 0.90

00:14:32.040 Amazon, which is building facilities in her backyard, enable her to turn her back on this legislation.

00:14:42.120 Now, right, go ahead. Well, I just want to quickly bring up the second piece of this legislation that's

00:14:49.480 kind of being debated. You know, does she is her criticism legitimate? She took away legal recourse for 1.00

00:14:57.480 girls who are forced to compete against biological boys. And then this means like in Connecticut,

00:15:04.840 where in college, is this like strictly in college, she said, okay, you can't sue a college for this

00:15:11.800 reason? Well, the problem is she's taking out the protections for colleges. So how are you going to

00:15:18.040 sue on those grounds if women's sports isn't protected in colleges? So this really now applies to K through 12. 1.00

00:15:25.480 So in Connecticut, you know, we have already had biological boys beating out girls on the girls 0.97

00:15:31.480 track team there. And this takes away the ability of someone like a Selena soul to bring a lawsuit and, 1.00

00:15:39.240 you know, fight for her fairness. So, so, okay. So she is saying, like, she's saying on the one hand

00:15:46.040 that she's protecting K through 12 girls sports, but she's saying if a school decides, okay, actually,

00:15:53.720 this boy who identifies as a girl can play on the sixth grade soccer team, that girl's parents,

00:15:59.160 according to the changes that governor Noah made, cannot sue. Is that what you're saying?

00:16:05.560 Right. So how effective can this law be if they don't have the ability to pursue damages? And,

00:16:12.440 you know, just to be fair to her, some legal experts are saying, you know, maybe this opens the door for

00:16:18.920 trial lawyers and a lot of unnecessary lawsuits. But a lot of others argue that no, this, this provision

00:16:25.720 is necessary in order for this law to have teeth. So again, if, if this was a legitimate concern, she 0.98

00:16:34.120 had, she could have and should have raised it earlier.

00:16:37.320 Yes. And it's just, there are so many different, there's so many different pieces to this because

00:16:45.080 like you said, it seems like she's selling out to the NCAA. She did go on Tucker Carlson last night 0.99

00:16:51.080 to her credit to try to kind of like defend herself on this. And Tucker said, okay, it looks like you're

00:16:56.280 selling out to the NCAA. And she said, no, no, no, I'm not doing that. It has nothing to do with that.

00:17:01.400 I'm not allowing them to bully me. But what else could possibly be the reason? Because she also

00:17:07.560 explicitly said in that interview, Hey, we want tournaments to come here. We want tournaments

00:17:13.720 to come to South Dakota. So my question is, what is it? Is it because you don't think that this

00:17:19.640 has enough, like it's not legally substantive enough to hold up in court? Or is it a money issue?

00:17:26.680 Is it because you're afraid that the NCAA isn't going to bring their tournaments there? And

00:17:30.680 in either case, is that really worth not protecting girls' sports? But now she is doing this whole kind 0.97

00:17:38.440 of like PR move, it seems to, um, you know, she's trying to get people together and say, 0.98

00:17:44.200 we're for fairness in girls' sports and please sign this petition. What's that about? I'm kind of

00:17:51.080 confused about what seems like conflicting messages. Allie, the petition aspect of this is really salt in

00:17:59.320 the womb. Uh, what she did after backtracking on this legislation is create this website, uh, 0.95

00:18:07.160 about a petition to protect Title IX and protect women's and girls' sports. Well, a petition is kind

00:18:14.520 of meaningless. I hate to admit that, but it is. We have a national figure who was in a position to

00:18:21.160 actually do something that would protect girls' and women's sports. And she backed down. She was

00:18:27.800 unwilling to be the face of that issue. She was unwilling to take the bullet, uh, which inevitably

00:18:33.560 would have come. Uh, but in doing so, she, uh, really, you know, kind of exposed herself to,

00:18:41.720 uh, you know, the entire country as someone who is willing to, uh, sell out to the NCAA and Amazon and

00:18:50.040 other type of lobbyists who we know were pressuring her. Uh, this petition is calling for Republican

00:18:58.120 governors or any governors across the country, uh, to band together, to stand up to the NCAA and ensure, uh,

00:19:06.040 that girls' and women's sports are protected girls and women. Uh, but again, she could have done that. She 1.00

00:19:11.960 could have been the national leader in South Dakota, uh, by actually, you know, passing,

00:19:17.880 signing legislation, uh, that would have protected girls and women's sports. And now she's out there

00:19:22.760 promoting a petition that sounds nice, but doesn't really do anything. I don't disagree with her that

00:19:29.400 we do need a national coalition. We need more states that are doing the same thing as her. And there are 1.00

00:19:35.800 around 30 other bills, similar to this one in South Dakota across the country to protect girls and women's

00:19:41.720 sports. She could have been a national figure, sort of how Ron DeSantis, uh, was in Florida leading on,

00:19:48.120 you know, reopening and stuff. She could have been a face for this issue as a woman. I was excited about

00:19:53.160 that prospect. And unfortunately she's saying, no, I'm not willing or able to do this until I have

00:19:59.400 others surrounding me. Right. And what's also interesting is that she did just a day

00:20:05.480 ago. And I mean, I don't want to be cynical and say, this probably has to do with trying to like

00:20:10.120 take attention away from what happened with the women's sports legislation, but she did announce

00:20:16.200 an abortion ban, um, on world down syndrome day. Um, and so I think that this ban has to do with

00:20:25.000 not being able to get an abortion just because you get the diagnosis that your child has down syndrome.

00:20:31.400 Well, that is probably going to present some legal obstacles as well. She's probably this is going 0.99

00:20:37.560 to be brought to court, but she's willing to fight this battle, which is amazing as a pro-life person.

00:20:42.600 I'm so glad that she's willing to fight this battle, but why is it? I wonder when it comes to women's 0.99

00:20:48.920 sports, something that I believe that she probably is passionate about. I believe that she believes

00:20:54.120 that women's sports are for women. It seems like she's complicated it though, for some reason,

00:21:00.920 in a way that she is not worried about when it comes to abortion legislation. And I've just got

00:21:06.680 to think it has to do with exactly what you're talking about, the NCAA and, and, and making money

00:21:12.920 and not, I guess, wanting to make a statement on this issue. We also know that the LGBTQ lobby is very

00:21:20.200 powerful. And so we don't know what's behind that too, but it really is a shame because if she's not

00:21:27.000 going to stand up for this, then who is like, do we have a whole lot of politicians, governors standing

00:21:33.480 up for this issue in a way that is brave? Or is it just people like you and me that are talking about it?

00:21:40.200 Well, I think other governors across the country are now recognizing what an opportunity

00:21:46.200 this is to fight the culture war and stand up and be a face for that. And, you know, again,

00:21:52.680 I think this was a huge miss opportunity on her part. Sure. She would have faced, uh, you know,

00:22:00.120 financial consequences potentially in her state, but the grassroots would have had her back. 0.99

00:22:05.880 The vast majority of Americans, according to multiple polls, I've seen on this issue support

00:22:12.280 protecting fairness in girls and women's sports. It's a basic idea. We all know that men and women

00:22:19.080 are biologically, physically different from one another. And it is patently unfair for a biological

00:22:26.600 boy to take a scholarship opportunity away from a biological girl to compete in her own sports.

00:22:33.560 Um, and so the abortion example is, uh, it kind of exposes, uh, why a lot of people aren't buying into

00:22:43.720 her excuse for not signing this bill. We can't have leaders who will refuse to put into place policies 1.00

00:22:53.160 that the vast majority of their voters support simply because they fear political or legal retribution

00:23:00.920 by woke organization bodies such as the NCAA. Yeah. It really, I saw one commentator on Twitter

00:23:09.160 say that this is not only about girls sports. It's just about basic sanity. Like you said,

00:23:14.360 biologically girls and boys are different. We had an episode last week where we talked about some of the

00:23:18.840 studies won by Duke law school, for example, um, that talked about the differences between men and women.

00:23:25.080 And they looked at track stars, Olympic track stars, women versus high school

00:23:30.120 and college age and adult men. The Olympic track stars were beat by high school boys. Um,

00:23:38.360 when it comes to their time on certain track events, like 15,000 times, there was no event

00:23:44.520 in which these elite female runners could beat, um, the best time for high school and college age 1.00

00:23:52.120 boys when it comes to track. And so when you look at that kind of disparity, of course, the military

00:23:56.920 has done these kinds of studies as well. I mean, it's just basic sanity. And I think I know I'm not

00:24:03.000 in her position and thank goodness. I'm not a politician, but I think it's worth the cost and gosh,

00:24:09.560 it could have just given her so much political capital as well. But I think that she has kind of

00:24:15.800 thrown that under the bus, but we'll see what happens. I do want to move on to, um, this next issue.

00:24:21.320 That is a piece of federal legislation and that is called the pro act. And I first heard about this

00:24:28.200 from you, uh, from an article that you wrote in the federalist and I'm worried, I'm really worried

00:24:34.520 about it. And I know a lot of people out there, this could possibly affect them as freelancers,

00:24:40.280 as independent contractors. So can you talk to us about what that is?

00:24:43.800 Absolutely. So the pro act, the protecting right to organize act is a federal piece of legislation

00:24:51.800 already passed by Democrats in the U S house of representatives that is modeled, uh, after

00:24:58.200 legislation that was already enacted in California called AB five. Uh, I want to first note that the

00:25:05.880 pro act goes earlier than AB five in the fact that it also, uh, includes a lot of pro union,

00:25:13.320 provisions. Um, this means that the right to work laws that have passed in a number of different

00:25:22.120 states now would essentially be gutted. Uh, workers would be forced to hand over private information

00:25:29.400 to their union. So that aspect of this legislation is problematic enough. That's for another podcast,

00:25:35.800 another time, but it's interesting when you, uh, hear, uh, the left endorse the pro act,

00:25:42.760 talk about the pro act, including president Joe Biden, who issued a bringing endorsement of this

00:25:48.680 legislation, he makes no mention of the problems that I'm about to bring up that directly would

00:25:56.120 impact, uh, the livelihoods of anyone across this country who works in an independent contractor or

00:26:03.080 freelance gig. Uh, those, those two independent contractors and freelancers, uh, essentially are,

00:26:09.320 are, are, are, are the same thing in the legal ways when we talk about this legislation. Um,

00:26:15.160 so the pro act would force the vast majority of American workers who work as independent contractors

00:26:21.560 or freelancers to work as formal employees, regardless of whether they prefer that type of

00:26:29.240 arrangement or whether they prefer the independent contractor status. Um, so let me tell you how this

00:26:37.080 bill actually works and then we can get into the motivations behind it. So this bill would, uh,

00:26:43.880 nationalize what's called the ABC test. Uh, the ABC test is infamous in California and is used to

00:26:50.840 determine if a worker should be classified as an independent contractor. The standard establishes

00:26:56.760 that a worker is an employee unless she meets three criteria. A is free from the control and direction of

00:27:04.760 the hiring entity. B performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entities business.

00:27:11.800 And C is engaged in trade occupation or business of the same nature. So the B prong is what has proved

00:27:18.920 to be so problematic in California to the point that it is devastated. The gig economy, uh, multiple

00:27:26.840 carve outs have, um, have had to be addressed to give special exemptions to different sectors of

00:27:35.080 California's freelance economy. This bill did not work in California. Uh, lawmakers have backtracked on

00:27:41.880 it, passing cleanup legislation. Uh, and, and yet lawmakers want to take it nationwide. It really makes

00:27:49.320 no sense, but it does make a lot of sense why Democrats in, in promoting it, uh, make no mention

00:27:56.360 of the impact it would have on freelance and independent contractors. So let me give an example

00:28:02.200 of why this B prong is so problematic. And can you restate the B prong just in, in case people might've

00:28:08.760 forgotten. So, uh, performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entities business. Uh, so if,

00:28:18.120 if you perform work that is outside of the usual course of the hiring entities business, you cannot

00:28:23.160 be hired as a freelance worker or an independent contractor. So this is a real life example. This

00:28:28.760 is a woman who I've gotten to know over the past year who has been devastated by AB five in California.

00:28:36.200 She lives outside San Diego. Her name is Monica Wyman. She's a Hispanic mother. Um, and she's also a 0.99

00:28:43.880 florist. She did not, um, have any higher education. She really struggled to get a, find any sort of work

00:28:52.360 after, uh, taking time off to raise her young kid. She eventually found work, uh, in a local flower shop

00:29:00.200 and decided to be an entrepreneur and start her own flower business, uh, designing for floral arrangements 1.00

00:29:07.960 for weddings and other special events. Uh, this was, she had a lot of success for this and she began

00:29:14.680 hiring fellow moms who couldn't or didn't want to take on a full-time job. Um, but they did want to 1.00

00:29:23.080 contribute to their family's income and, uh, you know, fulfill their lives with a side gig, such as

00:29:29.160 helping to design flower arrangements. So she hired them as freelancers, uh, but because of AB five,

00:29:36.440 she's now being forced to shut down her business because of that B prong, uh, these freelance 0.99

00:29:43.000 workers do not perform tasks that is outside the usual course of her. So just to clarify,

00:29:50.440 B prong says that in order for you to qualify as an independent contractor, you do have to be, um,

00:29:58.440 providing services that the, the business that hired you is not typically providing. So for

00:30:06.280 example, if I were an independent contractor for, uh, for a blaze TV, I'm hosting a podcast.

00:30:13.240 I probably wouldn't qualify under this as an independent contractor, because this is kind of

00:30:18.920 what, what blaze TV does. They, they do media, they, they do podcasts and things like that. And so I

00:30:25.800 probably wouldn't be able to say maybe if I were like a freelance plumber or something like that coming

00:30:31.880 in, I would qualify as a freelancer, but because I'm doing something that is within the scope of

00:30:37.800 what blaze TV does, I wouldn't qualify under this B prong as a freelancer. This would force the blaze

00:30:45.000 to, you know, hire me as a full-time employee. That's what, that's what you're saying. Correct.

00:30:50.840 Exactly. And this already happened in California, uh, with Vox, which, uh, ironically was touting the

00:30:58.760 legislation before it went into effect. Vox had a bunch of freelance writers, uh, based in California

00:31:05.560 who would contribute from time to time and make a decent amount of income. Uh, but AB five in

00:31:11.560 California, uh, it, not only did this B prong, you know, not work out for these freelance writers,

00:31:20.360 uh, but they also capped the number of articles. These freelance writers were allowed to submit for any

00:31:26.680 one organization. Um, and so Vox had to let go of hundreds of freelance writers in California,

00:31:34.680 which of course was devastating for them to the point that, uh, you know, the, these writers

00:31:40.600 actually lobbied for their own special carve out from AB five in California so that they wouldn't have

00:31:47.400 to operate under AB five and lose those opportunities. There've been a number of industries, uh, similar to,

00:31:56.600 freelance writers who have successfully lobbied for these exemptions in California, uh, to the point

00:32:03.400 that it very sadly, it's the less influential industries that have been left out that didn't

00:32:11.320 have all the money to spend on expensive lobbying campaigns. They didn't have the political connections,

00:32:15.960 right? You know, writers could use their voice to push back against this law selfishly. They only got

00:32:21.480 carve outs for themselves. They didn't get it for everyone in California. And even worse,

00:32:26.040 now they're enabling this law to spread to the entire country through the pro act. So this could

00:32:34.280 be absolutely devastating for the, so many independent contractors, many of whom are working moms who

00:32:41.480 would rather prioritize, you know, their caregiving responsibilities, you know, not always just for

00:32:47.560 children, but for their aging parents, there's so many reasons that Americans prefer not to go after a

00:32:55.560 traditional W two job and, and need that side income, but can only work certain hours or only

00:33:03.320 want to work certain hours. Yeah. You know, this, I view it as an attack on the American dream,

00:33:08.520 quite frankly, um, the ability to work for yourself. Right. And I also think, um, if we get into

00:33:17.560 the, the, the, the why behind it, of course, what's being said, I'm sure what was said in,

00:33:23.240 in California and what is being said right now is that this protects the American worker. This makes

00:33:30.680 sure that you get benefits because they Democrats almost cast freelancing as something that people

00:33:36.520 fall into. They don't want to be there, but that's actually not true. I think that it was you that said in

00:33:41.400 your article that 70%, at least a freelancers are voluntarily freelancers. Like they might be able

00:33:47.960 to, to get a traditional job, an employee job, but they don't want to, they like the flexibility.

00:33:53.400 They like the income. They, they like the freedom of being a freelancer. Um, and now Democrats are

00:34:00.200 saying, well, no, like you deserve, um, access to a union, you deserve, uh, benefits. And so we're going

00:34:07.800 to force your employer to actually, or we're going to force the person who hired you as a freelancer

00:34:12.680 to make you an employee. Well, that's not going to be the result. The result is going to be these

00:34:17.480 companies saying, well, I'm not going to hire you as an employee. I can't afford to. I'm going to have

00:34:21.880 to pay you a different salary. I'm going to have to provide benefits for you. And I just can't afford

00:34:27.640 that. So what this is going to lead to is not freelancers all of a sudden getting hired by these

00:34:32.440 companies and getting benefits and a higher salary and access to a union. It's going to be that

00:34:37.560 they're going to be out of work because these companies aren't going to be able to afford to

00:34:42.600 hire full time. All of these people who are currently functioning as independent contractors.

00:34:48.760 That is like what you said, exactly what happened in California. That's what's going to happen on a

00:34:53.720 national scale. And I'm guessing the why behind it is because Democrats want more people paying union

00:35:01.800 dues. They want more union power because the democratic party is, is backed by the unions. Is that

00:35:07.240 like, is that an okay assessment of the why behind it, the stated why, and then possibly the actual

00:35:13.480 why? Yes, I'm going to get into the why, but what you just said brings me full circle to the Monica

00:35:21.320 Wyman example that I mentioned earlier, where she did not have enough income to provide traditional 0.99

00:35:28.520 benefits to the freelance moms she used to rely on to run her business. Now that she can't hire these 1.00

00:35:35.080 freelance moms to help her. She cannot fulfill the orders for floral arrangements for weddings by 1.00

00:35:44.040 herself. She also, by the way, has a health condition where she's physically unable to do some of the 0.99

00:35:49.160 installment of these floral arrangements at weddings, for example. So her business relied on the support of

00:35:56.440 her fellow freelance moms to run. She did not have enough income to provide them the benefits that AB5 1.00

00:36:05.400 in California required. And so now she's out of work, she's shutting down her business. And the fellow

00:36:11.640 moms who she used to hire are also out of work. Now, I just want to pause just one second, because I think

00:36:18.000 sometimes our progressive friends, when they think about a company refusing to take on full-time

00:36:27.820 employees and just keeping independent contractors, or when they think about the hesitance of business

00:36:32.140 owners raising the minimum wage, they think about these greedy millionaires, these greedy rich people

00:36:40.560 who just don't want to help out the common man. They don't want to raise the minimum wage because

00:36:45.760 they're greedy. No, what we're talking about are small business owners who just like everyone else

00:36:51.620 are trying to make ends meet. And the people that they're hiring are also trying to make ends meet.

00:36:57.520 So when you pass a bill like this, or when you raise the minimum wage arbitrarily to $15,

00:37:02.920 you're not hurting the rich millionaires. I mean, they can take it, they'll figure it out,

00:37:06.620 they'll automate. Who you're hurting are these small business owners who are just trying to provide

00:37:12.340 for their families, right? Right. And the freelance moms that Monica used to hire never asked for 1.00

00:37:18.620 these benefits. They chose to work for her. And it's just devastating. And there's just countless

00:37:26.060 of these types of examples in California. It says a lot that lawmakers on the national level,

00:37:32.200 again, are not talking about the impact that the PRO Act could have on freelance workers and small

00:37:39.340 businesses nationwide, because the consequences of those are looming in their own backyards

00:37:44.260 out in California, where they actually enacted this type of legislation. I agree with you, the

00:37:50.680 motivations behind the PRO Act are to empower the unions. That's who's endorsing them. And, you know,

00:37:58.800 it sounds a bit cynical, but, you know, the unions have lost a lot of power and a lot of money

00:38:04.640 over the past couple years. And you have to think, who stands to benefit from a legislation

00:38:11.040 like this? It is the unions. They are the only ones who stand to benefit. Poll after poll tells us

00:38:17.560 the vast majority of freelance workers choose to work that way by choice. They're not asking for

00:38:24.600 these benefits. They are getting them in other ways, whether that's through their husbands, whether 0.98

00:38:29.020 that's through private organizations, whether that's through faith-based organizations. So it is the

00:38:34.820 unions who stand to benefit. And this law, I have a lot of friends who work in freelance that have

00:38:43.060 nothing to do with politics. They don't love talking politics with me. And I have a hard time

00:38:49.640 communicating with them about the dangers this legislation poses to their entire way of life. It would

00:38:57.060 fundamentally transform the way Americans are allowed to work in this country. It would change 0.98

00:39:05.380 your life overnight if you are a freelance worker who relied on a contract you had from, you know,

00:39:12.680 a company that all of a sudden would be forced to comply with this law and could no longer keep that

00:39:19.100 contract with you. It could have the effect of forcing you into a traditional nine to five job that a lot

00:39:25.360 of Americans, specifically a lot of women don't want. We are moving towards a more flexible workplace, 0.51

00:39:31.860 which is especially empowering for working moms to balance the priorities of being a caregiver and 1.00

00:39:38.900 also keeping their foot in the door. The left constantly talks about wanting to keep, you know,

00:39:45.260 increase women's labor participation rates. Well, this legislation would make it more difficult to do 1.00

00:39:51.500 that because it would force women and all Americans for that matter into an all or nothing position of 1.00

00:39:58.000 you either work a traditional nine to five union job or you don't work at all. Or you rely on a single

00:40:03.560 income if you're married or which would dramatically change a lot of people's life. A lot of people make

00:40:10.000 a good, you know, at least side income being a freelancer. If you no longer have that income and you say,

00:40:17.000 you know what, I can't do a nine to five job. I don't want my kids to, you know, go to daycare. I

00:40:21.500 want to be at home. Then you rely on your husband's salary, which might be fine, but you might have to

00:40:27.960 dramatically change where you live, you know, what you're able to actually afford. Like you said,

00:40:35.360 your entire way of life. What do you think the likelihood is of this passing? Of course, we would

00:40:44.760 think that Republicans would be against it, that it wouldn't pass the Senate. But, you know, I never

00:40:51.260 know. Sometimes Republicans just disappointing, disappoint, disappoint me. They surprise me.

00:40:58.880 And so I guess I'm worried about this. I'm worried as well. So it was passed in the House already.

00:41:06.560 The vast majority of Democrats supported it, but a small handful of Republicans also voted in favor of

00:41:12.960 it. And so that should be concerning for heading to the Senate where, you know, it's tied. And then

00:41:20.060 Mala Harris would be the tiebreaker vote. We know that the Biden administration endorsed this

00:41:26.200 legislation. Look, Joe Biden is supposed to hold this first press conference this week. I know it's

00:41:32.460 a pipe dream, but I really hope at some point he or his administration is asked about the potential

00:41:40.080 consequences of the proact on freelance and independent workers, because it would fundamentally

00:41:46.280 transform the way Americans are allowed to work. And we're not just talking in hypotheticals here. 0.81

00:41:52.220 Yeah. We have real examples from the state of California, which is liberal utopia that tell us

00:41:58.880 this law did not work for independent contractors there. Why does anybody think in that case that it

00:42:06.500 would work nationwide? Yeah. You also have to wonder, and I know this is like especially cynical, but we

00:42:12.780 talked about getting people out of the home, getting parents out of the home who would like to have that

00:42:18.000 freelancing job or, you know, like they like that flexibility. You have to wonder if it also has to do with

00:42:26.020 that. Is it a desire from like a cultural standpoint to have more parents working full time and to be able to

00:42:35.180 lobby for other things like universally subsidized daycare and things like that? I mean, I know that

00:42:41.620 might be seeming to go a little bit far, but when you think about the implications of that, taking more

00:42:47.940 moms out of the home, which is exactly what's going to happen, you have to wonder if that's part of the 1.00

00:42:52.620 motivation or maybe if that's just an unintended consequence. I don't know.

00:42:55.640 It's safe to say it's an unintended consequence. I don't doubt, you know, it's part of the larger push

00:43:05.360 by the left because yes, if you force women out of, you know, work from home options where they have

00:43:12.020 contracts that they're doing the work, you know, while taking care of their children at home,

00:43:17.080 you know, they're forced to find those childcare options. And hey, free daycare sounds pretty nice,

00:43:23.120 right? Of course, it's not free. We're actually paying for it. And in effect, don't have much

00:43:27.560 control over the quality of that daycare. But that's exactly what would happen. And I really

00:43:33.180 fear that freelance workers are going to wake up to the consequences of this law too late, like they

00:43:39.580 did in California. You know, everybody passed this and liberals in California were very excited.

00:43:46.000 You know, this is going to empower workers, get them more benefits. And within the first month,

00:43:51.860 freelance workers realized that's not what has happened here. Instead, we've lost jobs all

00:43:58.440 together. Yeah. And so I don't doubt Ali, if this legislation ever does pass and get signed into law

00:44:06.460 that it would receive so much pushback that eventually changes would have to be made. But I do

00:44:12.220 not want that to see that happen to all these freelance workers whose incomes would be wiped away

00:44:18.120 overnight. So if you know any freelance workers, independent contractors who stand to be impacted

00:44:23.920 by this legislation, you know, we really need to have a conversation with them about its potential

00:44:30.160 impacts. Because again, choosing the way you want to work when you want to work who you want to work

00:44:35.500 for should be a fundamental right that we all have. And this legislation would take that away.

00:44:41.020 Absolutely. Well, thank you so much for laying that out so clearly in both of these issues.

00:44:47.420 Everyone can follow you on Instagram and Twitter, correct? And anywhere else that they can follow

00:44:53.700 or support you? Absolutely. At Kelsey Bowler on both those platforms. And they can also follow me

00:45:01.100 by signing up for Bright Email on getbrightemail.com. It's a morning newsletter for women by women.

00:45:07.460 I have a feeling that your fan base would have a lot of fun with it.

00:45:11.540 Yeah, for sure. Well, thank you so much, Kelsey. I really appreciate you taking the time to talk to

00:45:15.420 us. Thank you. All right. So that proact, guys, I just want to emphasize to you how important it is

00:45:33.540 for you to call your senator. Even if you're not a freelancer, this is going to have devastating

00:45:39.080 effects on our economy after a time that our economy has already been devastated by these

00:45:44.200 arbitrary lockdowns. People have already suffered so much, especially freelancers have suffered so

00:45:49.320 much because a lot of people aren't paying for the freelance services that they were previously

00:45:53.980 because they're trying to save their own money. Freelancers have had a tough go of it

00:45:57.920 in some cases over the past year. And so if you care about anyone who is a freelancer,

00:46:04.720 if you care about the American dream, if you care about entrepreneurship, if you care about the

00:46:08.880 reason why 1 million immigrants come here every year to be able to have the freedom and flexibility

00:46:14.100 to start their own business and to be able to build a life here for their families that they

00:46:20.960 couldn't have built from the country where they came, then you should care about this bill.

00:46:27.640 This dramatically transforms our economy and not in a good way. And if liberals in California were

00:46:33.700 complaining about it, were complaining that this hurt their lives, then you know it's not good.

00:46:38.820 But again, Democrats want to put it on a national scale. They want it to be national so they can get

00:46:45.260 that power from the unions. And I also think it has to do with wanting to change culture and wanting

00:46:50.760 to change families as well. And so this is a bill that you absolutely have to push back on.

00:46:56.620 It's not one that people are going to be talking about because it doesn't talk about, I don't know

00:47:02.120 what other adjective to use, but it doesn't talk about like these sexy topics that we talk about a

00:47:07.620 lot that, you know, get a lot of attention or are, you know, necessarily clickable or will go viral.

00:47:14.220 It's not a cultural issue. It doesn't seem like, but it is so important. I mean, this affects

00:47:19.900 people's lives. This will affect all of our lives, but especially freelancers. I guarantee you every

00:47:26.740 one of you knows a freelancer that you care about whose life would be directly and negatively impacted

00:47:33.160 by something like this. I encourage you to read the legislation for yourself if you have any

00:47:37.880 questions about it, but call your senator. Make sure that your senator is voting against this bill.

00:47:44.400 Again, whether it's Republican or Democrat, this is a very bipartisan issue. It really,

00:47:49.700 again, doesn't have one of those like wedge social issues in there. Yes, Democrats are going to support

00:47:56.240 it because of the unions. But if you live in West Virginia, maybe, for example, or if you live or if

00:48:03.040 Kristen Sinema is your is your senator in Arizona, you might be able to push them over the edge on this.

00:48:11.000 So just make sure that you are reaching out to your senators or emailing your calling and you're

00:48:15.400 stating your opposition to this bill in a very kind, respectful and thoughtful way. And just make

00:48:22.760 sure that they feel the pressure, because remember, these representatives work for you. These senators

00:48:27.380 work for you. So push back on the proact. It is so important. All right. That's all I've got for

00:48:32.360 today. We'll see you guys back here tomorrow.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - March 23, 2021

Ep 390 ｜ Kristi Noem Betrays Girls' Sports; the PRO Act Betrays Freelancers ｜ Guest： Kelsey Bolar

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript